Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
the taxes that support government expenditures. they paid premiums through their employers for health coverage. they forgo wage increases that could be much higher if health costs were not growing as fast. they believe are the beneficiaries of the whole two trillion dollars in the end. we are not talking about the blood in the streets. people fighting over dwindling -- over a dwindling pie. i would posit that only in health care what the growth from two 0.9 trillion dollars in 2013 to 5.1 trillion dollars in 2023 would be referred to as a shrinking pie. there will be plenty of resources flowing into the health-care system, just not quite as much as would be flowing if nothing was done. we are talking now to give you some sense of the magnitude of this. we are talking about the .rojected health policy twee if you say two trillion dollars in that growth, you would be reducing health spending to only 40 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. you would be cutting the growth in health spending from an estimated 90% under current policy to only 75% over the next two -- over the next 10 ye
in louisiana including the tax reform he's just launched in the past few weeks, what he's doing is trying to think about how at this moment at a time when globalization's putting enormous pressures on working class voters, at a time when the economy is going through a very complicated, difficult moment when it's not clear how to get back to growth, he's thinking creatively about how to use the strength of his state to build on its weaknesseses. and i think at the national level that's what conservatives have to do. to some extempt, it's being done. i would say the policy agenda that has to come at the end of that conversation is not fully worked out by any means, but the questions are being asked. i think the direction of thinking has been helpful even in the wake of the election. if you listen to what people like marco rubio or paul ryan have been saying, it's different from what they themselves were saying six months ago, a year ago. i think the focus is turning to the right place. that doesn't mean that he'll persuade the public, but it certainly helps to ask the right question if you'
with the government, undergoing background check, paying taxes and a penalty, and learning english. a solution has alluded past presidents including george w. bush. >> legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the american people, and congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. >> president obama did announce during his first term that his administration would stop deporting some young undocumented immigrants but he was taken to task at a univision town hall for not promising to do something different. >> you promised something. a promise is a promise. with all due respect you didn't keep that propgs. >> what i promised was i'll work every single day as harold as i can that regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they come from, that they would have a fair shot at the american dream. >> reporter: still hispanic americans, the country's fastest country growing bloc helped repel president obama to a second term. it was a "wake-up call" to the republicans. >> i do know there are those who want to solve this problem, fix this mess and many of us agree with that. >> report
the high speed computer trades. >> is there any downside to a tax? >> yeah, if you're a hedge fund manager or one of the high-speed traders, you're going to have to pay some tax and it's going to discourage you from making bets that distort the market. for the rest of us, i don't see a downside, ed. >> how would we make a determination? because you know they would come back and say oh, this is really going to hurt the economy. how would this hurt the economy? >> i don't see how discouraging speculation, which is almost all done with borrowed money. they effectively borrow money at a rate of 30 to 1. you put 3% down and borrow the rest of the money. i don't see how this hurts the economy. and if we reduce this volatility and reduce market distortion, we can get back to having a market focused on investments that create production in the future and wealth in the future, not creaming the market today through speculation. >> quickly, you think this is something congress could embrace? >> not probably in this congress in the house, but i think this is an idea. it's been around for 80 ye
island hold there so big money people can come there and shelter their tax money and stuff like that. >> stephanie: awesome. >> caller: isn't that a great idea? >> stephanie: right. and no rules or regulations of any kind. no stoplights or stop signs just go. >> are you tired of your government taking away liberties and freedoms you can't quite name. welcome welcome susseed with us. your hard-earned money is yours to teen. there are no taxes in -- glen becky becky becky becky stan stan. >> there are no roads, police teachers, libraries, garbage pickup or sewage statement in -- >> glen becky becky becky becky stan stan. >> but you will friend off the wild animals and then the survivalist train willing kick in. who needs government. it is over rated. join us in -- >> glen becky becky stan stan. >> want to shoot your gun in all directions, go ahead. with a small down payment it can be yours. >> above the fruited plains. >> our future is in the past. >> stephanie: good call, producer chris. >> thank you. >> stephanie: you just dropped that out of nowhere. >> i did. it was
majority support on a cloture vote: the dream act, bring jobs home act, small business jobs and tax relief act, paying fair share act of 2012, repeal big oil tax subsidies act, teachers and first responders back-to-work act, american jobs act of 2011, public safety employer-employee cooperation act, paycheck fairness act, creating american jobs and ending offshoring act. now, again -- again, it's not that the bill was filibustered. the right to even debate these bills and vote on them was filibustered. one thing, he go on the bill and they filibuster. no, we couldn't even debate it. even though a majority of senators voted for cloture. not 60 but a majority. so the majority thwarted from even bringing these up and debating them and even letting people offer amendments. now, it used to come that if a senator opposed a bill, he or she would engage in a spirited debate, try to change people's minds, attempt to persuade the public, offer amendments, vote "no," and then try to hold members who voted "yes" accountable at the ballot box. isn't that what it's about? in contrast, today, to quote fo
problem. and the president wants to increase taxes to continue the spending. >> these democrats are going to spend us right into bankruptcy. they're not serious about getting things under control and stopping the spending. >> the white house is so unserious about cutting spending. >> none of that is true. i mean, to the extent that true means attached to facts. here is spending under bush. here is spending under clinton. here is how spending has dropped under president obama. these guys were not mad about george w. bush's big spike in spending, buzz they have decided to get really mad at the guy who is fixing that, and that anger is weird enough on its own terms. it's weird enough that this republican analysis of this problem is so divorced from reality. but what today's news reminded us is it's not just the analysis that is weird, it's also the purpose of the analysis, what they are using this cockamamy backwards analysis to justify that is really deeply strange. for decades, raising the debt ceiling was something that congress has been willing to do. since the presidency of fdr, congres
's fiscal crisis saying only significant spending cuts, not tax reform, will solve the deficit problem. that is something is he thinks the president is missing. >> i don't think that the president thinks we actually have a fiscal crisis. he has been reportedly saying to our leaders we don't have a spending problem, we have a health care problem. that leads me to conclude he thinks we ought to have more government-run health care and rationing. i don't think that is going to work. jon: let's get back to karl rove. karl, what about his thoughts on a president bent on conquest? >> i think it is accurate. i wrote about this in my "wall street journal" column last week. i thought it was interesting in the president's inaugural address he went out of his way to take a political slap at his defeated opponent in the election, mitt romney and then he went on to basically call republicans name-calling absolutist who are clowns. in order to make certain we got the point, his communication director had gone on television the day before we have neither a political system or a political opposition w
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)